Statement released at the press conference held at Interfax on 16.07.2008

As already reported, an unexpected halt was called on 27 June 2008 to the familiarisation of Mikhail Khodorkovsky with the documentation of his criminal case “in order to press new charges and carry out other investigative activities”.

The accusations were made known on 30 June and on 2 July it was announced that the preliminary investigation was complete and the case materials would be made available for familiarisation. No “other investigative activities” were carried out but it was discovered that an additional 16 volumes of documents had been added, yet again, to the case files. These materials were collected as part of an unlawful, “parallel” investigation pursued without the knowledge of the defence over a number of years. Next, the term of preliminary investigation and of our client’s detention in custody, were extended for a further three months until 2 November 2008.

There is every reason to believe that an extension of these deadlines was the main aim of the investigators. In its recent statements the defence team has declared that the charges are “new” in almost no respect, and in the scale of their absurdity does not differ from the previous accusations, levelled 18 months ago. Not one of the contradictions has been removed; not a single judicially nonsensical assertion has been excluded. The crudest violations of the rights of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which cannot be explained even by the urge to secure another deferral, are evidence of the great haste with which this operation was implemented. Only a short while ago the investigators were hurrying the defendant and his lawyers to study the case files, demanding that they work on Saturdays, and even went to court (!) to secure a reduction in the deadlines for completing familiarisation. Now there is a blatant wish to keep the status quo for as long as possible or, to put it more simply, to drag things out. In our view, this is explained by the impossibility for the investigators of receiving a guarantee of the case’s “successful” passage through the courts from well-known highly-placed figures, whose blatant pressure has until now determined the course and results of the judicial examination of all the Yukos cases.

The court in Chita, due to inertia, has still extended Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s detention in custody but the impulsive actions of our procedural opponents testify that they were genuinely frightened by President Medvedev’s declared course towards the independence of the courts and the primacy of law. Decisions taken recently in a number of key court hearings instil a cautious optimism that this time it is the beginning of real change and not a question of empty words about the “dictatorship of the law”, of which we had our fill during the last eight years.

It is, therefore, a matter of personal responsibility whether those in charge of the investigation, fully aware of all the consequences, take the decision to transfer Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s case to the courts (and as Article 47 of the Constitution so firmly demands, to a court in Moscow, not in Chita). It is not hard to foretell the consequences of examining an absurd accusation in a court that is not subject to crude pressure.

Another indication of the uncertainty among Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s persecutors is that a another volley of black propaganda has recently been launched from the pages of mass media well known as channels for disseminating such disinformation.

We are aware that there are forces which will continue to make every effort not to allow the release of our client. They must understand, however, that by their lawless acts they are not only obstructing us but also the President in his efforts to root out legal nihilism. Naturally, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev and their lawyers will appeal against all the recent, unlawful decisions and actions of the investigators.

Furthermore, Mikhail Khodorkovsky has agreed to apply to the courts for release on parole from the punishment imposed by the verdict of the Meshchansky district court in Moscow. The law permits a petition on behalf of the defence, of which we have taken advantage. The submission of such a petition is a normal judicial procedure, governed by the norms laid down in the criminal, criminal procedural, and criminal executive codes of the Russian Federation. It was to these procedures that President Medvedev has made repeated reference, when responding to questions about the possible release of our client.

To uphold such a petition neither “penitence” nor even admission of guilt are required of the defendant. A positive decision about parole will undoubtedly strengthen trust in the judicial system of our country and the transformations in that sphere which the President has announced.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s team of defence lawyers
16 July 2008